 |
| To see larger image click here. |
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." (Source the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.)
You know this is an example of WHY I get so upset by people discussing the idea of bringing this country back to its Constitutional roots, and that we all need to deify the Founding Fathers and appreciate their work in building this nation as unassailable.
Here is an example of a man who came along many decades later, is justifiably considered an incredibly important figure in bringing equal rights to ALL people in this country, but who was clearly still a product of the prejudice and racism of his time.
The facts are that our society has greatly evolved since the time of Lincoln, and especially since the time of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson. The world as it is today would be virtually unrecognizable to these men. And the rights enjoyed by Americans would literally cause their jaws to unhinge with amazement.
Literally the only people who should desire a return to a country that embraced ONLY those privileges laid out in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, are wealthy white MEN. Anybody else who believes they would benefit from a return to those days, or enjoy this country as it once was, are either ignorant of history or a self loathing member of a majority of Americans who are NOT rich, white, and male.
Very well stated Gryphen. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThat is shocking. I wonder why it has taken so long to hit the mainstream.
ReplyDeleteIt's always been there -- lots of things are "there" -- if one studies more deeply than high school texts. But Lincoln's place as the Great Emancipator stands, despite this.
DeleteSo does Theodore Reoosevelt's , for inviting the first black man to the White House.
And to Harry Truman who integrated the troops.
And for Eisenhower for sending Federal troops in to ensure equal opportunities for Southern negro students.
And to LBJ for his myriad, astonishing cloak of protection for the underprivileged and colored.
We move slowly, but surely, toward equality.
Well when you teach (young)children something, you generally teach it as black and white, (heck even colors get taught as primary first- red, yellow, blue and then later introduce nuance like teal, and violet and because otherwise they become confused. Shades of grey, or people being both good and bad are handled only when the brain has developed further. Conservatives are obviously in an arrested stage of development and need white and black hats on the main characters of history or their immature brains can't handle it.
DeleteEvelyn WaughApr 15, 2012 01:00 PM
DeleteLincoln was no Emancipator, he only wanted to stop the Civil War.. He could not bear seeing whites killing whites. If the Civil war had not happened, Lincoln would not have touched slavery. He was FOR slavery. I did my study on this.
WakeUpAmericaApr 15, 2012 12:07 PM
DeleteIt is not shocking to me. I have read a great deal about Lincoln.
Literally the only people who should desire a return to a country that embraced ONLY those privileges laid out in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, are wealthy white MEN.
ReplyDelete------------
You're kidding right?
There's a lot of poor, ignorant white folk living in the south, indeed all over the country who would be fine with that too.
Racism isn't the domain of the wealthy alone, far from it.
The wealthy white old guys wouldn't piss on a poor white guy if he were on fire.
When I was younger and visited the deep south as a guest of my wealthy white relatives, my uncle took my and my cousin out to the levee. He showed us how white people lived in neighborhoods where they were among their peers, then we drove downtown and saw the black community where they could catch the bus to perform their domestic work and factory jobs. Then he drove us out over to the levee and showed us where the white trash lived. Never have I heard it since but he looked us boys straight in the eyes and told us that white people despised blacks (he used another term as casually as I'd swat a fly) but they saw the necessity for them to perform jobs no self respecting white should ever have to do. What he said about the white trash was awful, they were less respected because they couldn't even pull themselves up to a better economic place than a "N" and for that he spat in the dirt while we stood and stared at their shanty town. When the floods came, as they did, the town people pulled together and helped rebuild. The white trash? They hoped them would be swept away and relocated downstream.
DeleteIf you read this again you'll see that what Gryph said was that only wealthy white men "should desire....." He was not saying that only wealthy white men are racists but rather that only wealthy white men would benefit (i.e. not be screwed and live long and prosper) if we returned to a world in which "ONLY those privileges laid out in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights" existed.
DeleteMy first reaction was that it was some kind of sick Tea Party propaganda, and yes, I'm pretty shocked as well. I had read that the Civil War was actually about economics and not slavery, but this is appalling.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was about economics, and Lincoln wanting to stop the Civil War was to stop the killing of whites, his motive had nothing to do with stopping slavery. Lincoln was all for slavery.
DeleteWell, at least the Party of LIncoln hasn't strayed as far as we thought it had, huh? It is fairly well known that Lincoln resisted emancipation. He saw it as the only way to end the war. And it cost him his life, although I suspect there was a plot to kill him either way. But I can hear Barbour and many of the Southern 'leaders' saying these very words today behind their hoods and pointy hats. Seriously, after what the President has endured in the name of 'jokes' these past 4 years, nothing surprises me.
ReplyDeleteNow the right can just say they are agreeing with good old Abe, after all.
I remember reading all about this years ago: Lincoln's reluctance to get into this whole emancipation movement, but history required otherwise of him and he stepped up to the challenge, whatever his personal feelings or upbringing. That is the key to his greatness. He did the right thing in spite of himself and others.
DeleteM from MD
He did it to stop the killing of whites, not for any other reason.
DeleteI think people wish to return to a country where the OLD SCHOOL democratic party still existed, NOT this bullshitting, race baiting, welfare supporting worthless Dem party we see today.
ReplyDeleteOur grandfathers would be ASHAMED of democrats today.
I'm actually pretty ashamed of my grandfather, so I guess we match.
DeleteMy Grandfather was a life long Democrat. His father was a Union organizer. Both believed in people helping people, including the weakest, most needy among us.
DeleteComments like yours remind me that in my 62 years of experience, it's usually the less educated and insecure people who seem to be the most racist. There was no race baiting in anything you read, just historical fact. But, your whole comment reeks of racial bias and ignorance. You need to go back and listen to Beck and Limbaugh who have validated your repressed feelings on race and welfare recipients that you have had to kept silent for years .
DeleteUm,
Deleteare you guys kidding me?!?!
You don't know a Nasty, Stinky old Troll when you see one?!? er, read one????
RACE-BAITING DEMOCRATS??
Are u Fucking kidding me here, people?
Keep your eye on the ball; this person is a shit stirrer.
I think it's our Fat old Krusty...
No life loser who comes here to start trouble.
Take your noses Elsewhere! She stinks!
Well Said, AnonymousApr 15, 2012 06:25 PM.
DeleteKristy is a very sad person. And not too bright! I mean she stalks the Palins and adores them even though they kick her away. Need I say more. She's always generalizing about Democrats even though she probably doesn't know any. If she did, she might get that the aren't all the same. She is pathetic in her ignorance and hypocrisy. Dont judge anyone you don't know but ALL are this or that.
DeleteI can't imagine being an African-American and trying to make it in America's white man world. No one ever talks about this. The bigoted attitude these founding fathers had of believing that white man should have superior position over black races or not thinking them qualified to hold Office? All of that Lincoln quote is sad because THIS is what African-Americans have had to tolerate, generation after generation, this attitude since their arrival here.
ReplyDeleteI'd say that African-Americans have really overcome, despite the small voice in their minds that they were not worthy as much as others were worthy. This being drilled into them, by the actions of their overlords.
I've never understood, never understood. I used to live next to a Welfare street, all whites, but they had ingrained in their heads that they were inferior. When that belief gets passed on from generation to generation, and no one tries to correct it, it's not easy to undo, the kids feel like there's no future, no hope. This secret pain does affect and infect every group, tribe, social/economic group, race, and keeps them mentally and physically in the lower echelons of society. It prevents a person's full potential to be reached.
I pray it stops now so all men, regardless of color, who are EQUAL, can live without any preconceived notions.
Isn't it time?
What a beautiful and compassionate post. You have opened my eyes. Thank you.
DeleteYeah, every once in a while they slip and say in public what they’ve been saying with their friends (ni****, blah and Soledad).
ReplyDeleteLincoln participated in the Black Hawk war, against native Americans.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong: Isn't this from the Lincoln-Douglas debates? It was before he was elected President. We do hope that humans grow and evolve through time. Clearly, he evolved his views to some degree.
ReplyDeleteHenry Louis Gates explores Lincoln's attitude toward race in this article, "Was Lincoln Racist?" Writes Gates: "Lincoln despised slavery as an institution, an economic institution that discriminated against white men who couldn't afford to own slaves and, thus, could not profit from the advantage in the marketplace that slaves provided. At the same time, however, he was deeply ambivalent about the status of black people vis-Ã -vis white people, having fundamental doubts about their innate intelligence and their capacity to fight nobly with guns against white men in the initial years of the Civil War. Even as he was writing the Emancipation Proclamation during the summer of 1862, Lincoln was working feverishly to ship all those slaves he was about to free out of the United States."
DeleteYet Gates points out that the Civil War itself began to alter Lincoln's attitudes — "The other factor that began to affect his attitudes about blacks was meeting Frederick Douglass. Lincoln met with Douglass at the White House three times. He was the first black person Lincoln treated as an intellectual equal, and he grew to admire him and value his opinion." Gates concludes: "It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently."
Also, NPR did a nice segment last month called "Emancipating Lincoln," which looks at how the Emancipation Proclamation itself reshaped Lincoln's attitudes as he grappled with the reality that he had wrought.
That's cool; makes him a human, who was able to see a greater picture.
Delete(I have to say, I'm interested in whether or not he was also struggling with being gay?)
I have read a LOT through the years of President Lincoln and have never seen the above quote! I'm not sure it is authentic!
ReplyDeleteIf one reads history carefully it's apparent that slavery was as much about rallying support for an unpopular war as anything else. The war was going badly and it wasn't clear that it would remain supported. So Lincoln played the race card and drew the abolishionists in to support him. There were lots of dynamics that led to Lincoln freeing the slaves. Compassion was not necessarily one of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know, it doesn't have to be. I don't worry about people's reasons if they're doing the right thing.
DeleteIvyfreeApr 15, 2012 01:48 PM
DeleteHis motive was to stop the killing of whites, not free the slaves.
I like this post for the reason that it evokes positive debate . I would like to see both sides give their views ( though I know this is a heavily liberal blog ) . Try to no only approve views you like... I am interested to see all sides .. this is very interesting indeed.
ReplyDeleteAs for my comments on this post ... My view is , Comparing different times for any political game is merely literary . No two times in history are the same . There are ever so different nuances that contribute to different mind set.
But i disagree with Gryphen that the founding fathers and the famous presidents should not be quoted . In the times that we can only imagine, they did some great things that deserve praise. No person is a saint .... and if this post implies that Obama is the best thing that has happened to us , its not true. He is a politician , lawyer, flawed , and to quote the poster , don't deify Obama either.
People say that this country was founded on a false principle and on the back of slaves by slave owners . THat is absolutely true ... but that day and age is gone... wrongs have been righted .. I think capitalism is a good thing and entitlement is not right.... you shouldn't feel entitled to get anything from the govt other than security , infrastructure and I would add healthcare .. but definitely not in Job creation .
It's most assuredly a good idea to NOT deify any politician. We have enough trouble with religion hijacking our country, we don't need to add to it. The one principal of the founders that I would love to see exercised is a return to the Separation of Church and State, just as they intended. They'd all roll in their graves if they were to see the forced Theocracy that our nation has become. We will take our country back one day from the claws of the religious (hypocritical) right.
DeleteSo your position is that in a day when corporations are getting tax subsidies to ship their jobs overseas and cutting jobs in massive numbers (sometimes over 10,000 at a time), and when cutting jobs is the single-most pursued method of increasing the corporate bottom-line, . . . . the government should just sit there with its hands folded and do nothing: it should neither create jobs for the unemployed OR allow unemployment checks to be given to them. It should just . . . . let havoc happen. Nationwide.
DeleteAnd when this happens to YOU, YOUR family, YOUR children, and YOUR community, your response will be exactly what?? My guess is that it will be something like: "Obama did NOTHING to create jobs!!!"
Other industrialized nations take care of their citizens. They actually consider that a higher calling than going to other countries and blowing up citizens there, and destroying the infrastructure there.
Cain is the one who asked, "Am I my brother's keeper?" You may not have read about this, but God preferred Abel over Cain.
The commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" actually requires DOING something for your neighbor to prove that love, both individually and as nations. God will judge individuals and nations by how they treated "the least of these among you." Which side do you want to be on? Matthew 25:31-46.
Interesting reply . My stand is not anti or pro obama . I don't want to be drawn into what you assume about me . But the interesting point you make is - Industrialized nations take care of citizens. TRUE . and should . But not to the extent that it has gone . Also , Industrialized nations found that there was a great leveler in the Internet and Technology . The whole World is now a level playing field. How do you compete with that. The monopoly is eroding and going. The jobs are going too. The tax structures now have to be level with the world and esp the countries of developing markets. All jobs are going there for a reason . You Cannot expect the Govt to solve all your problems . You have to compete , probably by bettering yourself , maybe through harder work , lesser ego for menial jobs, and maybe getting a higher education and go up the ladder.
DeleteTake care of your needy citizens is one thing ... but instead of decreasing that number with better tax structure and business friendly market , increasing it with entitlements and benefits is actually going to hurt more .
See , lesser tax payers, more on benefits . Some maybe happy to do that I guess.
"Entitlement is not right"
Delete...you mean, like being entitled to an inheritance? Or being entitled to admission to a college because your father graduated there? Or being entitled to a high position in the company because your family owns the business?
Or do you mean being "entitled" to the social security and medicare that I've PAID INTO MY ENTIRE LIFE?
Don't "deify" Obama?
DeleteDemocrats don't "DEIFY" Obama;
it's yet another BULLSHIT propaganda POS that the GOP craptank came up with.
Pass on, trolly.
You don't want REAL discussion here.
Plus,
most of us would have to get lobotomies to communicate with you.
Pass!
(And explain the difference between ENTITLEMENT and SECURITY?
the elderly sure has HELL believe their MEDICARE is SECURITY,
but according to the GOP, it's an ENTITLEMENT,
and RYAN'S BUDGET PLAN ELIMINATES Medicare!
So, ya know,
come back with facts,
the adults are talking here.
Shoo! Shoo!
Although you paid into social security your entire life, your elected United States representatives exempted themselves from the social security system in favor of a much more solvent plan for themselves. Not THAT is an entitlement.
Delete(For entertainment, if you get to attend a RWNJ senate or represenative's Q&A, first get them to rabidly denounce entitlements, then ask if they have refused the pension they are ENTITLED to by virtue of their elected position. RWNJ will turn purple and bluster before having you escorted from the room.)
idolizing the past is ALL conservatives can do since they lack creative vision.
ReplyDeleteask them what they'd like the future to be like, and they are stumped AND then go on to paint a dystopic scenario of what progressive politics will lead to.
The site Gryphen links to is indeed suspect, bu tit is also in the online classical lit site:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/the-writings-of-abraham-lincoln-04/
I like to think that, had he lived long enough, he would have come to see things differently.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Lincoln was a racial separatist and one who backed the deportation and resettling of former slaves (and likely all blacks) in Liberia. He was a men of his times.
ReplyDeleteAnonymousApr 15, 2012 02:12 PM
DeleteHe was a white supremacist. He thought white were superior.
Oh for shit's sake, things change, it's called evolution, and my man Abe was way ahead of his time. Palin the idiot wants to take us to time that she doesn't have a clue about, wow, seems her teacher dad didn't make a dent in her stupidity...
ReplyDeleteTap
AnonymousApr 15, 2012 02:12 PM
DeleteYour man Abe was a white supremacist. I don't idolize that way of thinking.
Wrongs have not been righted, Accente. After slavery was abolished, African Americans - even those who were not or had not been slaves, were still discriminated against with Jim Crow laws, voter disenfranchisement, discriminatory hiring and education as well as confined to ghettos for real estate ownership.
ReplyDeleteThat continued to less that a 1/2 century ago, and the Civil Rights Act, which officially stopped those practices. Unofficially, the continued - redlining, which drives down property values, which are the way the majority of families in the U.S. build wealth continues to today. Since those property values are the basis of funding local public education, education discrimination has also continued - 'til today.
That redlining continues today with job creation. How does a small business start without loan money?
my husband who is a history teacher said - yes this is a quote of Lincoln's but not the entire quote (it is from a debate he was having about slavery) so there is more context to consider, as well as the circumstances - Lincoln was a product of his time, but also a good man who did want to do away with slavery - and also a politician - progress is done is steps not big sweeping moves - he abolished slavery but it would have been impossible to at that time to also achieve equality - what were his true feelings and how much of what he said was said in order to promote the cause of ending slavery (and saying what he did tapped down the fears of others) - we may never know, we can only draw conclusions by reading as much as we can of historical writings in their entirity and even then we can only make educated guesses.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I imagine President Obama knows this quote well,
Deleteand STILL considers Pres. Lincoln his favorite founding father.
President Obama truly appreciates the fact that as people grow, and LEARN, they CHANGE.
Hopefully, what they learn is Correct;
and Mr. Douglass was able to show President Lincoln that "these people", the "Negroes", are not "stupid", or akin to chattle!
They are a product of their environment!
They have been thrown in the fields, to work, literally, as mules~
they were not thrown into school!
And Mr. Douglass, was able to show PL that this was not a matter of evolution;
it was a matter of civility; of equal rights; and of education.
I wish more people evolved in their thinking like PL did...
Terrific post. Propaganda is here to stsy.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=6880
I can’t say that I was ever a fan of Andrew Breitbart. In fact, I considered him to be a deliberately dishonest purveyor of propaganda who reveled in rancor and divisiveness. But still, I have to wonder if he would be proud of his successors who are driving his media empire into ever more juvenile territory.
driving his media empire into ever more juvenile territory.... Sarah Palin
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/12/palin-interview-exclusive
Abe Lincoln was a politician. Regardless of his personal views, he was inclined to voice opinions that would ensure his popularity and get him votes. The term "etch-a-sketch" is useful when considering many of not only the politicians but the religious leaders of history. But it is important to remember that Lincoln himself was made to work for others and his father took his earnings.
ReplyDeleteBTW, just to be clear, Lincoln did not free the slaves entirely. The Emancipation Proclamation was effective only for slaves in rebel states that were under control of union forces. Slavery was made illegal everywhere in the U.S. by the Thirteenth Amendment, which took effect in December 1865, after the death of Lincoln.
Your post brought to mind an elementary school history class, where I had the courage (and stupidity) to mention that while ex-slaves could vote, women could not. My teacher was furious with me for tarnishing the good name of Lincoln. I was given a punishment task and my crime was reported to my parents. In response, I emblazoned several of my textbook covers with the phrase "no taxation without representation" and thereby enjoyed annoying the heck out of my helpless teacher for the rest of the year. But, oh how I wish, I had that quote in your post handy.
Lots of informative and thought-provoking comments today. I wish you all a Happy Jackie Robinson Day!
ReplyDeleteSlavery did indeed cause the Civil War, in that it was Southern anger over Yankee attempts to keep new states in the West from becoming slave states that drove the South to secede. But the Yankee desire to keep slavery out of the West was driven by a desire to save the West for WHITES, rather than from any sense of racial equality. It is a huge myth that the North fought the war to free the slaves. The North, and Lincoln, fought to save the Union. Lincoln's belated Emancipation Proclamation (1863, remember!) was a war tactic, and only applied to slaves living in the Confederacy.
ReplyDeleteSlavery disappeared in the North for economic reasons, not a moral perception that it was wrong. Once it had disappeared, THEN an abolitionist movement developed, but it was still very small and not widely supported in 1860. And much of it was driven by the belief that once slavery was abolished, the 10% of blacks in America who lived in the North would then move down South, so that all those godly northern whites wouldn't have to live with them.
Ironically, when the Constitution was written, there was a very real recognition that slavery was wrong. But there was also a sense of helplessness, in that they didn't know how to get rid of it. It was only later in the 19th, after the religious movement known as the Great Awakening swept the country, that people in the South started using the Bible to justify slavery and articulating the belief that blacks were divinely ordained to be inferior.
The myth exists for a reason: to put all the blame for slavery and racial bigotry on the South and the South alone, and to paint the North as far more righteous than they really were. As far as I'm concerned, Lincoln was a war criminal. He deliberately waged an ugly war against civilians in the South, and his attacks on civil liberties set a precedent we're still paying for. Not a hero in my book. He certainly didn't believe in racial equality.
The fact that you have only recently encountered this is evidence of how thoroughly the myth of Lincoln has grown to overshadow the historical fact of Lincoln. Historians and Lincoln scholars know all too well that he was a pragmatist rather than an ideologue (kind of like our current President). Lincoln was also a man of his time -- a time when it was accepted as scientific fact that slaves were slaves because they were from an inferior race. Lincoln and the Republican Party were more concerned with preserving the union of the states than ending slavery but because slavery was the wedge which was dividing the nation, Lincoln knew that slavery had to go. What he thought would happen afterward we can only guess at for there is not a wealth of information from that time and after he was murdered his thoughts were lost to the ages.
ReplyDeleteWell hey, while we're here~
ReplyDeleteCan I crap all over Benjamin Franklin's memory for y'all?
BF was never President (you BETTER know that!), but he is still a Founding Father; as he was instrumental in getting the US to the Revolution vs. England...
which brings me to our story...
Apparently, Benjamin Franklin and his son, William, were quite close...until the friction between the US and England became too great.
William, you see, was a Governor of the Jerseys(?), and a LOYALIST TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND,
"kind of" a problem for Ben Franklin.
So, as the war loomed and Wm. refused to side with the Colonists,
BF agreed to have his son jailed.
In jail, Wm. Franklin lost his hair, his teeth,
and despite a request to see her before she died (and zero input from his informed, yet estranged father, BF),
Wm. Franklin also lost his WIFE without even getting to see her.
Ben Franklin did, however, write numerous letters on behalf of jailed COLONISTS in ENGLAND.
BF also eliminated all mention of Wm. in his Biography, although Wm. was an instrumental partner in BF's most famous discoveries.
People are fallible.
Take the best they have to offer.
I agree that we shouldn't quote the founding fathers. Only the Palin family, anyone working for Levi Johnston, and those cheeky lolcats.
ReplyDeleteI remember a Prof in College who was a huge fan of Abraham Lincoln. Our first lesson was on how we look back on history in segments, instead of a continuum, and not be fooled by taking it in literary context of what's happened since and up to today's world.
ReplyDeleteHe read many essays, probably including this speech, and asked us if Lincoln said it or not. We can't take the "emancipation proclamation" nor the "gettysburgh address" and say "This is what Abraham Lincoln was all about" We can't even claim to say we can "think" in the way people "thought" in his day.
Someone else in the comments said "What mattered was that he eventually did the right thing", and I think that's the "teachable moment" from this quote.
Regardless of his reasons, Lincoln was the legally elected President dealing with seceding states. After the south attacked a U.S. military base- see "Fort Sumter"- naturally he called out the armed forces to protect U.S.holdings. It's hardly war crimes to protect the U.S. against traitors. The southern states still bluster about it being states' rights that they seceded over, but omit to say that the right they were protecting was the right to own slaves and spread slavery.
ReplyDeleteTwo things have always struck me. One is that the south succeeding in framing the Civil War as the "war of northern aggression" when it was the south who actually started the war, first by seceding and then by attacking a military base. Yeah, they can dish it out but not take it.
Second, the south is so damned proud of being not only traitors, but losers. WTF? No, I mean, seriously, WTF? I'd never advocate forgetting your heritage, but at least be honest with what your heritage is. The confederate states were traitorously attempting to break up the Union. And they lost. Why is that something to brag on?
Note: while I've commented in more than one place that I think we should just let the AIP succeed and secede, because those morons have no idea how to run a state- in reality, I'd advocate a military takeover of Alaska as well. The state is important geopolitically and you know those AIP morons would just sell out to whatever country wanted to park their asses there.
OTOH, I'd be fine if we just dumped the southern states. We surround them. Let them cope with their hurricanes and poverty on their own. They wanna leave? Sounds good. We'll just take all our military equipment that got moved there when Bush closed down a bunch of northern bases. Hey, we paid for the equipment- you don't get to keep it.
I don't know why anyone should be surprised. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't about freeing slaves. It was about breaking the back of the South, which was heavily dependent on slave labor. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south. The slaves in the border states, and states controlled by the Union - like Louisiana - still kept their slaves.
ReplyDeleteStripping the south of their free labor not only boosted the number of soldiers fighting for the north - many freed slaves did just that - but it also dealt a crushing blow to the Confederacy.
Only later when the abolitionist movement gained steam did Lincoln feel pressure to free all the slaves. It had nothing to do with is being a champion of black people, which he is sometimes cast to be. He was a politician.
This is why it is so disturbing when Blacks praise Lincoln. Lincoln DID NOT abolish slavery. He stopped the Civil War, ONLY because too many whites were being killed. He could not bear the white casualties, of white people killing white people. People should learn the true history of what took place back then.
ReplyDeleteLincoln was very comfortable with slavery, he did not want it to end.
I am Black, and I have known about the true beliefs of Lincoln, since I was in college, and that goes back decades, since i am in my 60's now.
ReplyDeleteSince having read more about Abraham Lincoln than any other president (except President Obama), I have never seen any of this information. Is history trying to be rewritten? I'm confused!
ReplyDeleteThis was a provocative post and outstanding discussion, thanks for posting it. Oh, except for the whiners who shout "troll, troll!" whenever they see a comment they don't like.
ReplyDelete